Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Crankyhawk]

If he reads your post, you might find that he may also be susceptible to taking defamation action.

It may be best to delete the post!

Yeah I would have put it as suspicion of being influenced, as that is (IMO) unlikely defamatory as a significant proportion of public believes this as a possibility (vis a vis community of bigfooty)

 

[grumbleguts]

Dank more likely to get high velocity intracranial lead therapy which will make all of this go away.

Won't make it go away. On the contrary, it'll add another to the list of lives essendon has risked.

 

[eldorado]

Einstein?

I suggest you settle down.

hehehehe, nice one Albert...

Echol's famous theorum, E=mc2

where E = Essendon, m = many, and c = cheats

 

[becalm]

If there is clear documentary evidence he was intending to import TB4 for Essendon that's pretty straight forward. Your post used the word "thought they were handling TB4" - what's there not to get here Argy? They wanted TB4, they thought it was TB4, but there is insufficient evidence to say it is. And re your general statement: There are most certainly cases where it is easier to establish intent rather than actus reas. I've run them Argy. It depends on the facts

But it all comes down to comfortable satisfaction, your saying it has to be proven beyond any doubt, but that should not be the so in this case. By the way you are beginning to sound like GG.

 

[Glorious couch life]

CouchPotato you may be an incredibly moral person with an unwavering moral compass and sense of justice but I just know that what you describe would not be the prevailing tide of opinion amongst the supporter base. The vast majority of us would defend the club to the bitter end and look for every shadow of doubt we could find in order to justify our doing so. Given this I feel that the best position to take on Essendon is not sanctimonious finger wagging but rather silent disapproval. The court of public opinion has already convicted Essendon of their crimes regardless of the AFL's actions (or inactions). The punishment may not meet our expectations but in the end its not our punishment to hand out.

If you're going to post bullshit like this I'm not surprised that everybody jumps on you. You can add me to your "minority" of Hawthorn supporters who would condemn such a situation were it to occur at our club.
I'd want every person involved kicked out of the club and punished severely. What happened at Essendon was, and is terrible. But don't think for a minute that their response to their own actions represent a reasonable response, that other club's fans would mimic if it was their club.
As for your "silent disapproval" as means to show your displeasure...
The AFL would love to clone you for a supporter. That way they could throw any last vestiges of accountability and transparency out the window.

 

[Rushed_Behind]

Don't get too down. I'm an opinionated a-hole at the best of times and probably need to improve my posting style. Seysearles is a different story though (who seems like a really nice and reasonable type).

Just mucking around. I forgot to put a rainbow and/or drunk face. You're alright.

 

[threesixpio]

But it all comes down to comfortable satisfaction, your saying it has to be proven beyond any doubt, but that should not be the so in this case. By the way you are beginning to sound like GG.

Um - no I'm not saying that. I said that perhaps they should appeal based on the threshold being too high. My basic argument is that given they may be using a threshold of proof that is too high the easiest thing to prove is that Dank intended to use TB4 and that's why it got up.

But let's not confuse things here - I'm trying to present a measured legal argument - GG was an out and out apologist for Essendon which I have never been.

I do think there must be problems with the Charter and Alavi evidence hence ASADA's rushing off to the SC. Why else would they go to the SC? It ain't cheap to do so. For fun?

 

[threesixpio]

hehehehe, nice one Albert...

Echol's famous theorum, E=mc2

where E = Essendon, m = many, and c = cheats

Lol

 

[threesixpio]

But it all comes down to comfortable satisfaction, your saying it has to be proven beyond any doubt, but that should not be the so in this case. By the way you are beginning to sound like GG.

And I think there is real need for law reform. Chief's thread on S0 on the HTB is great and has been hijacked by narky Bomber supporters. My main beef with all of this is that ASADA need better powers re the presentation of evidence at tribunals. And why do I argue this? - because I'm likely just as f&cked off as you are that Essendon dodged a bullet

 

[Brishawk]

Ok so what we know about the players is this: they took absolutely zero responsibility for the substances injected into their body. We know this because 30 seconds of searching thymosin on their smart phone would have revealed the only version of thymosin that enhances performance is banned.

So given the players did not meet their responsibility to know what went into their body How do they not simply inherit the intent of those administering the drugs? This is supposed to be exactly the kind of excuse rejected by the wads code. If they defer their responsibility to a sports scientist then they should also inherit his intent.

 

[threesixpio]

Ok so what we know about the players is this: they took absolutely zero responsibility for the substances injected into their body. We know this because 30 seconds of searching thymosin on their smart phone would have revealed the only version of thymosin that enhances performance is banned.

So given the players did not meet their responsibility to know what went into their body How do they not simply inherit the intent of those administering the drugs? This is supposed to be exactly the kind of excuse rejected by the wads code. If they defer their responsibility to a sports scientist then they should also inherit his intent.

Because for intent it needs to be intent to use TB4. This is murkier than Dank unreservedly ordering TB4. Worth appealing re intent to use TB4 for the players? Maybe. But I disagree with the question/assertion "how come Dank got down on intent and the players didn't" upon the basis that the cases are equal in evidence.

 

[savagelunchbox]

Because for intent it needs to be intent to use TB4. This is murkier than Dank unreservedly ordering TB4. Worth appealing re intent to use TB4 for the players? Maybe. But I disagree with the question/assertion "how come Dank got down on intent and the players didn't" upon the basis that the cases are equal in evidence.

"How come"? Really?

Because the tribunal of former judges are getting PAID BY THE AFL MORE THAN WHAT THEY GOT AS JUDGES to rule in favour of what the AFL feels is in the best interest of the game.

 

[Davo23]

"How come"? Really?

Because the tribunal of former judges are getting PAID BY THE AFL MORE THAN WHAT THEY GOT AS JUDGES to rule in favour of what the AFL feels is in the best interest of the game.

Two of them are former County Court judges with a reputation for fairness
The 3rd is a current barrister, and former AFL player.

None of them has ever had any hint of doing anything unethical or illegal.

You, sir, are a total dingbat.

 

[Flag08]

Two of them are former County Court judges with a reputation for fairness
The 3rd is a current barrister, and former AFL player.

None of them has ever had any hint of doing anything unethical or illegal.

You, sir, are a total dingbat.

Maybe hard to describe as unethical but certainly their professional judgement has now been brought into question and their reputations and the impartiality of the tribunal have been dinted.

 

[Davo23]

Maybe hard to describe as unethical but certainly their professional judgement has now been brought into question and their reputations and the impartiality of the tribunal have been dinted.

Yes, the tribunal may have made a decision which can be appealed. They are influenced by evidence and legal arguments and can be swayed by them.
That happens every day in the courts.

My point is that you can't say they have been bribed.
That's stupidly ridiculous.

 

[Wundo]

Yeah I get a bit scared about this stuff but I'm both precious and paranoid.

Are you hungover again today Jedi Anderson??

 

[savagelunchbox]

Two of them are former County Court judges with a reputation for fairness
The 3rd is a current barrister, and former AFL player.

None of them has ever had any hint of doing anything unethical or illegal.

You, sir, are a total dingbat.

I wouldn't expect anything from your naive, rose coloured glasses POV.

They were never bribed. I didn't even hint at that and never have. Their salaries are paid by the AFL because that's who employs them. You don't bite the hands that feed you and if they're getting paid more than what they were in an industry known for high salaries, when they say jump, you respond with "How high".

They would have been told to only find the Essendon players guilty if there is direct, indisputable proof that the Essendon players were injected.

 

[threesixpio]

Are you hungover again today Jedi Anderson??

Maybe I get drunk to deal with those issues

 

[threesixpio]

Yes, the tribunal may have made a decision which can be appealed. They are influenced by evidence and legal arguments and can be swayed by them.
That happens every day in the courts.

My point is that you can't say they have been bribed.
That's stupidly ridiculous.

Someone talking my language. They may have made the wrong decision but it wasn't rigged.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Someone talking my language. They may have made the wrong decision but it wasn't rigged.

How would we know?

 

[Gold Member]

Dank more likely to get high velocity intracranial lead therapy which will make all of this go away.

.308?

 

[Argy]

Someone talking my language. They may have made the wrong decision but it wasn't rigged.

I want to believe you, and I generally do hold judges and properly convened tribunals in high regard. But given that the panel found that everyone believed they were handling TB4, but that belief meant little, indicates to me that external influences may have affected their perception of where to draw the line of "comfortable satisfaction". None of us has seen their judgement in full, but if the reports are correct then their line of reasoning seems contrived.

 

[CD Xbow]

Maybe hard to describe as unethical but certainly their professional judgement has now been brought into question and their reputations and the impartiality of the tribunal have been dinted.

Someone talking my language. They may have made the wrong decision but it wasn't rigged.

It's not necessarily deliberate rigging or outright corruption. It's unconscious bias. It's the reason we have separate and independent legal tribunals, it's the reason scientist use double blinding in experiments, it's the reason why Olympic athletes facing doping charges don't get judged by national bodies. We all have unconscious biases. In this case some would be:
- what's good for the game in their perception
- home town bias
- bias towards an outcome that suits there employer
And it's the reason it will probably end up at CAS.

 

[Argy]

And it's the reason it will probably end up at CAS.

I hope it does go there. I can't see ASADA changing the decision by appealing to the AFL.

 

[TNTre]

Someone talking my language. They may have made the wrong decision but it wasn't rigged.

Personally, I wouldn't say the decision was rigged, however like SLB said, I think the fact that the judges were employed by the AFL would have meant that they would have been heavily influenced in regards to the outcome of the case.

It all leaves a very bad taste in the mouth to see these seemingly contrived outcomes, whilst all being told "nothing to see here, move along". As long as there's footy, right? I agree with the sentiment expressed in this thread, that if it weren't for the Hawks, I wouldn't follow AFL. My love for the game has dwindled as I've seen the boys club run around and pat each other on the back telling themselves they're doing a great job. This Essendon issue is just another prime example of how the AFL will take care of it's own brand to the detriment of the moral fabric of the game itself.